Socialstatistics.com is a cool site where G+ users can submit their profile to see if they make the top 100 leaderboard. Shortly after launching, the 87% male, 11% female, 2% other stat started making the rounds. But that data is completely skewed: males tend to compete for leaderboard recognition more than females.

Another great site, findpeopleonplus.com now indexes nearly 948,000 Google+ user profiles and tracks many data points about the users, including gender. They report that of the first 948,000 profiles they crawled, 74.9% are male and 25.1% are female. But crawling is time consuming and the crawlers were finding the mostly male user profiles from the initial field test seeding. This is not a random sampling.

My surname-based random sampling has shown a very different number. For the first time, I'm publishing it here:

For comparison sake, LinkedIn, which is a business social network with more than 100 million users is still 63% Male and 37% Female according to Pew (See attached report below). Google+'s female population percentage will likely surpass LinkedIn's in early August. The poster of 18 men in a hot tub that has been passed around for the past week or two is not reflective of reality and is not what Google+ is going to end up being.

Google+ is definitely for men, women, and other. (But not kids....yet)

I'm attaching a link to a fantastic Pew Internet study report showing age and gender breakdowns for all the main social networks. Highly recommended.﻿

Hrmm... Ive been linking a lot of people into my circles and I've personally seen an approximate 2:1 M:F ratio generally... and the genders are apparently clustering off seperately into their own groups anyway...]﻿

I'm female but, alas, not a nerd or extraordinary tech savy, but I am generally very interested in "what makes people tick" and I like to keep up to date on what's happening technology-wise, even if I sometimes have to ask for help. Google+ is a natural place to be:-)﻿

Android also started with a similar demographic. I think google's strategy is to attract the techies who then build on their product and attract other users. That's been Microsoft's biggest hurdle... they can't seem to attract developers.﻿

I began looking for other women here on G+ this week, and don't find many. That's just the way the early WWW was, with lots more men than women setting up web sites in the early 1990s. Some, like Kim Komando, have biographies up without any streaming yet. But more will surely come.﻿

By the way,@Brent Fishman, where from do you take, that women only will come, when they can play those stupid games? At the beginning, when I also played this farming thing I have seen there far more men than women, by the way.... And before I blocked the Mafia thing there were ONLY men, who invited me to play with them, what I didn't....

I would like, when never ever any of such stupid and nerving apps and games would take place here on google + On Facebook I have blocked them all....﻿

While it is great to hear that the statistic making the rounds that G+ being about 90% male is flawed, it doesn't surprise me that the misinformation continues to go around. I made a 1am rant last night basically saying that all that stat told me was that G+ is a "sausage fest" (to put it nicely), and sausage fests are NEVER cool in the real world unless it literally is delicious sausage.

I hope the gender gap continues to narrow as G+ gets more users and becomes public. Thoughts from both "sides" are always pleasant.﻿

I'm running a Google+ nickname service (gplus.am) and out of 10,000 people that are using it since launch six days ago, 22% are female. I don't know if that comes into play in the grand scope of things, but those are the numbers so far.﻿

Hello! Beta release!Nothing to do with the fact that computer science related fields have even greater m/f ratio.I'd bet you'd have close to the same stats for the Beta run of Win7 two years ago. (If you exclude all the "self advertisers" that begged the computer guys to do the circle invite trick after they shutdown the main invites.)﻿

As the writer of the original story on this (June 30), I wish you'd asked me for comment before labeling my work misinformation - fun thing to say for you, somewhat less for me. If you'd read the piece, you would have seen that it was written two days after the service started. It said the sampling was unscientific. It said the proportion varied among users from 1:10 to 1:3. It said this was probably due to the way the invites were released, and the ratios would probably change. Which appears to be what is happening. The concern expressed in the story was that an early skew toward males would set patterns of male-type discourse that would inflect the experience. Patterns like -- let's see -- shooting down people without seeing what they had to say about it.﻿

For background, Facebook has more women than men. Beyond the number of users, women generally tend to use FB a lot more than men. (FB was more female-dominated from very early on). Here's what I'm wondering, will the asymmetrical nature of G+ create a different social dynamic than FB, one that is more masculine? (There are more men at G+ right now for two obvious reasons. One, it is rolling out by snowballing among the techie crowd, a more male group. Second, people who ask for an invite were getting it and that is also a more male trait. (Tons of studies show women are less likely to ask for raises, promotions, etc.) )﻿

+Gord McLeod do you know if there are plans for making topical searches for people possible? Also it looks like a lot of people don't know how to start a public discussion on their Home page. Will how to post be made more obvious in the future?﻿

Do you mean given name, not surname? Also, note that women are more likely than men to conceal their gender and post under gender-neutral names/nicknames/pseudonyms. However one can draw some conclusions by counting up names that are commonly gendered one way or the other and allowing for the fact that a percentage of people will be presenting under a name that is clearly gendered but not the same way they are. (Hard to tell what exactly that percentage is, though.)

How to get more women on Google+? Robust privacy, prompt enforcement of harassment (which we all want regardless of gender to keep the spammers out anyhow), and the ability to conceal any and all personal details including name and gender, or reveal those only to specified circles.﻿

The gender of my circle inhabitants has never been a concern of mine. I cannot even make a guess. My friends and associates are simply that, they aren' a gender. They are a person. I think that attempting to put a spotlight on such stats merely acts to perpetuate division. It is a meaningless stat. People will use what people will use.﻿